DOCSLIB.ORG

North Carolina Intercity Passenger Rail Call Center Operations Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Carolina Intercity Passenger Rail Call Center Operations Study FINAL North Carolina Intercity Passenger Rail Call Center Operations Study Submitted To: Rail Division North Carolina Department of Transportation Submitted By: WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff October 28, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 Goals of the Study............................................................................................................................ 3 2 Current Call Center Administration and Operations ......................................................................... 3 2.1 Administration ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 North Carolina Call Center Operations ...................................................................................... 3 2.3 Amtrak Contact Centers ........................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Amtrak Cost Implications ......................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Booking and Reservations ........................................................................................................ 8 3 Identification of Cost-Saving Initiatives .......................................................................................... 10 3.1 Amtrak/North Carolina Operational Cost Initiatives................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Reconcile APT Actual and Contract Forecast costs .......................................................... 10 3.1.2 Actively participate in revisions to PRIIA Section 209 cost allocation methodology ......... 10 3.1.3 NCDOT takes control of ticket reservations for Piedmont service .................................... 10 3.1.4 Develop a non-reservation service for the Piedmont service only ................................... 10 3.1.5 Place Service Charge to the Purchase of Amtrak Tickets via Website or App or Phone .... 12 3.2 North Carolina Call Center Initiatives ...................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 ByTrain Call Handling Enhancement ............................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Reduce diverting calls and talk time with Amtrak’s call centers ....................................... 13 3.2.3 Consider using Interns to Staff the Call Center ................................................................ 13 3.3 Marketing Initiatives .............................................................................................................. 13 3.3.1 Develop a BYTRAIN mobile App that bypasses Amtrak call center ................................... 13 3.3.2 Potential reciprocal marketing of local business to generate operating revenues ........... 13 3.3.3 Expand the marketing mechanisms used to educate current and potential riders about the interactive channels for ticket purchasing ................................................................................ 14 4 Peer Review of Reservations and Ticketing .................................................................................... 14 4.1 Peer Review Summary............................................................................................................ 14 5 Next Steps & Recommendations .................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................ 18 5.1 Revised North Carolina Call Center Script (to be inserted) ...................................................... 18 6 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................... 19 October 28, 2015 6.1 Peer Review of Reservations and Ticketing ............................................................................. 19 6.1.1 Adirondack ..................................................................................................................... 19 6.1.2 Albany- Niagara Falls ...................................................................................................... 19 6.1.3 Blue Water ..................................................................................................................... 19 6.1.4 Capital Corridor .............................................................................................................. 20 6.1.5 Cascades ........................................................................................................................ 20 6.1.6 Chicago-St. Louis (Lincoln Service) .................................................................................. 20 6.1.7 Downeaster .................................................................................................................... 21 6.1.8 Empire............................................................................................................................ 21 6.1.9 Ethan Allen ..................................................................................................................... 21 6.1.10 Heartland Flyer ............................................................................................................... 22 6.1.11 Hiawatha ........................................................................................................................ 22 6.1.12 Hoosier State .................................................................................................................. 22 6.1.13 Illini ................................................................................................................................ 23 6.1.14 Illinois Zephyr ................................................................................................................. 23 6.1.15 Kansas City- St. Louis (Missouri River Runner) ................................................................. 23 6.1.16 Keystone ........................................................................................................................ 23 6.1.17 New Haven-Springfield ................................................................................................... 24 6.1.18 Pacific Surfliner............................................................................................................... 24 6.1.19 Pennsylvanian ................................................................................................................ 24 6.1.20 Pere Marquette .............................................................................................................. 24 6.1.21 San Joaquin .................................................................................................................... 25 6.1.22 Vermonter ...................................................................................................................... 25 6.1.23 Washington-Lynchburg ................................................................................................... 25 6.1.24 Washington-Newport News............................................................................................ 26 6.1.25 Wolverine....................................................................................................................... 26 October 28, 2015 Executive Summary NCDOT Rail Division continues to investigate opportunities for additional revenue generators and cost reduction measures. The Call Center Operations Study was conducted to equip NCDOT Rail Division management with an understanding of the operations and activities of such environment and to develop revenue and cost saving measures. The Study examined the existing administration and operations of the service. Currently the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) at the North Carolina Correctional Institute for Women (NCCIW) in Wake County administers the program. The call center handles incoming calls from 1-800-By- Train and 1-800-VisitNC for NCDOT and the North Carolina Department of Commerce (NC Commerce). North Carolina call center attendants are trained using a script and protocol for calls related to passenger rail travel in North Carolina. The service at NCCIW functions as an informational customer service line. Attendants are not authorized to sell tickets, handle credit card/ personal information, nor make reservations. When a potential customer requests the need to purchase a ticket, the attendant transfers the call directly to Amtrak’s booking and reservations department. Amtrak and its state partners established a single, nationwide standardized methodology for distributing operating revenues and expenses amongst long distance and state-supported routes. The methodology was derived through the provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) Section 209. The 2014 Amtrak Agreements for the Carolinian and Piedmont were the first to fully implement the operating cost allocation methodology; The Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) system (Federal Fiscal Year 2014 (FFY2014) Contract Forecast, or estimated cost agreed to be paid, was $1,616,000 for the Carolinian and $623,000 for the Piedmont, totaling $2,239,000 ). The APT was developed and implemented to replace the Route Profitability System for accounting and allocating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Master HSIPR Selection Sheet 030413 Updates.Xlsx
    FRA High‐Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Updated 3/4/2013 Funding Selection Summary (Sorted by State Abbreviation, Funding Source, and Project Type) Funding Potential Estimated State Project Type Project Name Project Summary Source Funding* Alabama ‐ Total Funding Amount: $200,000 AL FY 2009 Planning Project New Passenger Rail Service in Alabama Completion of a feasibility study to restore intercity passenger rail service from Birmingham to Montgomery to Mobile, AL.$ 200,000 Amtrak ‐ Total Funding Amount: $449,944,000 This project will boost capacity, reliability, and speed in one of the most heavily used sections of the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The project will create a 24 mile segment of track between New Brunswick and Trenton, NJ capable of 160 mph train operations with high‐tension catenary, upgraded electric Amtrak ARRA Corridor Program NEC Power, Signal, Track, Catenary Improvements power facilities, and high‐speed rail interlockings that allow express trains to overtake and pass local trains, reducing delays that often affect this track $ 449,944,000 section. In addition, this project makes related track and interlocking investments between Trenton, NJ and Morrisville, PA and at New York Penn Station. The upgraded power facilities will reduce power failures, which are frequently experienced on this segment of the NEC. California ‐ Total Funding Amount: $4,243,143,231 This project encompasses the purchase of 15 passenger rail cars and 4 locomotives for use on the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capitol Corridors in California. These new cars and locomotives will be compliant with standards for equipment that can travel at speeds up to 125 mph established Next Generation Passenger Rail Equipment CA ‐ DOT ARRA Corridor Program pursuant to Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor Service Performance
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE In July 2016, the Capitol Corridor had one of its best months in the history of the service. Ridership was the highest ever, with a total of 128,655 passengers, a 1.7% year‐over‐year (YOY) increase. Revenue was up 4.6% compared to July 2015. Compared to June 2016, On‐ Time Performance (OTP) slipped slightly from 96% to 95%, yet was still above the FY16 standard of 90%. The Year‐To‐Date (YTD) results continue to be in positive territory. Compared to FY15, FYTD16 ridership and revenue are up 5.5%, with the System Operating Ratio at 55%, five percentage points above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, which keeps the Capitol Corridor in the #1 spot for service reliability in the national Amtrak intercity passenger rail network. The FYTD16 customer satisfaction scores (through June 2016) are at 89% “Highly Satisfied”, one point above the FY16 standard of 88%. The following are ridership highlights for July 2016: Average weekend ridership for July was down 7% versus July 2015. To address these continued decreases in weekend ridership, the CCJPA is modifying the weekend/holiday train schedule effective August 22, 2016, to slot trains at times that align with typical weekend travel patterns. Average July weekday ridership yielded a 9% increase thanks to continued growth on the trains serving San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County stations. Amtrak has sent detailed performance results (see attached) for June 2016 and provided below is a summary of the attached tables: OTP: June 2016 system end‐point OTP was a stellar 96% compared to 93% for May 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Surfliner-San Luis Obispo-San Diego-October282019
    PACIFIC SURFLINER® PACIFIC SURFLINER® SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO Effective October 28, 2019 Effective October 28, 2019 ® ® SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA VENTURA - LOS ANGELES VENTURA - LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO and intermediate stations and intermediate stations Including Including CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES connecting connecting NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Amtrak.com Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. page 2 PACIFIC SURFLINER - Southbound Train Number u 5804 5818 562 1564 564 1566 566 768 572 1572 774 Normal Days of Operation u Daily Daily Daily SaSuHo Mo-Fr SaSuHo Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fr SaSuHo Daily 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Also Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Not Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y On Board Service u låO låO låO låO låO l å O l å O l å O l å O Mile Symbol q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA –Cal Poly 0 >v Dp b3 45A –Amtrak Station mC ∑w- b4 00A l6 55A Grover Beach, CA 12 >w- b4 25A 7 15A Santa Maria, CA–IHOP® 24 >w b4 40A Guadalupe-Santa Maria, CA 25 >w- 7 31A Lompoc-Surf Station, CA 51 > 8 05A Lompoc, CA–Visitors Center 67 >w Solvang, CA 68 >w b5 15A Buellton, CA–Opp.
    [Show full text]
  • A-2 Capital Improvement Projects
    Buses staged at Pace’s East Dundee garage facility, managed by Pace River Division. Pace’s existing River Division garage will be expanded to allow more space for services operating along I-90 and locally in Elgin and the surrounding area. 56 | page A-2 Capital Improvement Projects Initiative: Implement all Pace capital projects funded through Rebuild Illinois, and produce a Facilities Plan to determine how Pace facilities will be used to support other service plans and initiatives. Supports Goals: Equity, Productivity, Responsiveness, Safety, Environmental Stewardship, and Fiscal Solvency ACTION ITEM 1 Rebuild Illinois State Capital Program Illinois’s nearly $45 billion capital construction program, Rebuild Illinois, earmarks $2.6 billion for public transit, of which $228 million has been allocated for Pace. Metra and CTA also received a combined $240 million in earmarks for capital projects through this funding source. As transit riders often make connections between CTA, Metra and Pace services, investments for all three service boards are expected to help improve the quality of public transportation regionally. Capital funding from the state is in addition to separate sources of funding all three agencies receive. Additionally, Rebuild Illinois will allow new sources of annual revenues to fund capital projects, primarily through the Transportation Renewal Fund, which will reserve 18 percent of receipts towards public transportation projects in Northeastern Illinois. Pace is working with IDOT, RTA, CTA and Metra to ensure program funding is expended quickly, effectively, and equitably across the region. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker speaking about the $45 billion Rebuild Illinois capital plan (Illinois Business Journal, 2020) page | 57 Pace Capital Projects funded through Rebuild Illinois 58 | page page | 59 I-55 Express Bus Garage and Infrastructure Pace Heritage Division has exceeded its garage capacity and cannot support further growth of Pace’s successful I-55 Bus on Shoulder service.
    [Show full text]
  • Cole County/Jefferson City Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Cole County/Jefferson City Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan November, 2010 Prepared by: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission 206 East Broadway P.O. Box 140 Ashland, MO 65010 Phone: (573) 657-9779 Fax: (573) 657-2829 Plan updates available online at www.mmrpc.org Cover Photos: Upper Left: US Army Corps of Engineers photo taken in 1993 of the HWY 63/54 intersection just north of the Missouri River Bridge outside of Jefferson City. Upper Right: Inspection of the Renn’s Lake Dam failure in 2009(Jefferson City News Tribune, photo by Julie Smith). Lower Right: A Russellville home after a 2007 ice storm that caused damage across much of Western and Central Missouri (Jefferson City News Tribune, photo by Julie Smith). Lower Left: Missouri State Highway Patrol photo of damage to home after an F4 tornado touched down in Southwest Missouri in 2008. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................1 Prerequisites ...............................................................................................................2 Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process ....................... 3 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................3 1.2 Background ......................................................................................................4 1.3 History of the Cole County/Jefferson City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan .. 4 1.4 Participating Jurisdictions ...............................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Issue of Play on October 4 & 5 at the "The 6 :,53"
    I the 'It, 980 6:53 OCTOBER !li AMTRAK... ... now serving BRYAN and LOVELAND ... returns to INDIA,NAPOLIS then turns em away Amtrak's LAKE SHORE LIMITED With appropriate "first trip" is now making regular stops inaugural festivities, Amtrak every day at BRYAN in north­ introduced daily operation of western Ohio. The westbound its new HOOSIER STATE on the train stops at 11:34am and 1st of October between IND­ the eastbound train stops at IANAPOLIS and CHICAGO. Sev­ 8:15pm. eral OARP members were on the Amtrak's SHENANDOAH inaugural trip, including Ray is now stopping daily at a Kline, Dave Marshall and Nick new station stop in suburban Noe. Complimentary champagne Cincinnati. The eastbound was served to all passengers SHENANDOAH stops at LOVELAND and Amtrak public affairs at 7:09pm and the westbound representatives passed out train stops at 8:15am. A m- Amtrak literature. One of trak began both new stops on the Amtrak reps was also pas­ Sunday, October 26th. Sev­ sing out OARP brochures! [We eral OARP members were on don't miss an opportunity!] hand at both stations as the Our members reported that the "first trains" rolled in. inaugural round trip was a OARP has supported both new good one, with on-time oper­ station stops and we are ation the whole way. Tracks glad they have finally come permit 70mph speeds much of about. Both communities are the way and the only rough supportive of their new Am­ track was noted near Chicago. trak service. How To Find Amtrak held another in its The Station Maps for both series of FAMILY DAYS with BRYAN qnd LOVELAND will be much equipment on public dis­ fopnd' inside this issue of play on October 4 & 5 at the "the 6 :,53".
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC
    NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC September 5, 2017 NEW YORK and WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK - NEWARK - TRENTON PHILADELPHIA - WILMINGTON BALTIMORE - WASHINGTON, DC and intermediate stations Acela Express,® Reserved Northeast RegionalSM and Keystone Service® THIS TIMETABLE SHOWS ALL AMTRAK SERVICE FROM BOSTON OR SPRINGFIELD TO POINTS NEW YORK THROUGH WASHINGTON, DC. Also see Timetable Form W04 for complete Boston/Springfield to Washington, DC schedules, and Timetable Form W06 for service to Virginia locations. FALL HOLIDAYS Special Thanksgiving timetables for the period, November 20 through 27, 2017, will appear on Amtrak.com shortly and temporarily supersede these schedules. 1-800-USA-RAIL Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. NRPC Form W2–Internet only–9/5/17. Schedules subject to change without notice. Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Train Name/Number Frequency New York Newark Newark Intl. Air. Metropark Trenton Philadelphia Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore BWI New Carrollton Washington Northeast Regional 67 Mo-Fr 3 25A 3 45A —— 4 00A 4 25A 4 52A 5 00A 5 22A 6 10A 6 25A 6 40A 7 00A Northeast Regional 151 Mo-Fr 4 40A R4 57A —— 5 12A 5 35A 6 04A 6 07A 6 28A 7 27A 7 40A D7 59A 8 14A Northeast Regional 111 Mo-Fr 5 30A R5 46A —— 6 00A 6 26A 6 53A 6 55A 7 15A 8 00A 8 15A D8 29A 8 50A Acela Express 2103 Mo-Fr
    [Show full text]
  • R0202'11 LSB Research Services Division MG
    Rep. McCann offered the following concurrent resolution: House Concurrent Resolution No. 41. A concurrent resolution to urge the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to pursue bicycle friendly policies by providing for bicycles on board trains and bicycle parking in future station plans. Whereas, An efficient, modern, transportation system is a pillar of a healthy economic climate and vital for Michigan's future. All modes of 21st century transportation infrastructure should be made accessible to modern travelers, whether tourists or commuters. Seamless multi-modal connections are essential to facilitate tourism and to allow greater mobility for bike commuters and those without cars. Bicyclists should be able to switch between transportation modes and link trips by bringing bicycles on trains without having to check them as boxed luggage. Bicycle tourism and commuting would be further accommodated with short and long-term bike parking at Amtrak stations. Unfortunately, Amtrak does not allow bicycles on board Michigan routes at this time and bike parking is not always available; and Whereas, Amtrak's routes out of Chicago, the Downstate Illinois Service and Missouri River Runner, offer roll-on bike service; the option to bring bicycles on board, either by storing bikes on board in bike racks, or secured as checked baggage with tie-down equipment (not in a box), and allow folding bicycles on board as carry-on baggage. All three of the Michigan Amtrak routes, The Blue Water, Lake Shore Limited and Pere Marquette lines, use the same equipment as Chicago area trains and would only have to update the reservations system to allow bikes on board in Michigan; and Whereas, Bicycle tourism is a booming industry and many Michigan bike tour events are located in or near cities accessible by Amtrak service.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIIA Report
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2020 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2020) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2020 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Eagle® Heartland Flyer®
    2009 ® 26, TEXAS EAGLE OCTOBER And HEARTLAND FLYER® Effective SM journey. the Enjoy TEXAS EAGLE® serving CHICAGO - ST. LOUIS - LITTLE ROCK DALLAS - FORT WORTH - SAN ANTONIO 1-800-USA-RAIL LOS ANGELES Call And intermediate stations HEARTLAND FLYER® serving OKLAHOMA CITY - FORT WORTH And intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form P21–200M–10/26/09 Stock #02-3670 TEXAS EAGLE HEARTLAND FLYER Chicago • St. Louis • Little Rock • Dallas • Oklahoma City • Fort Worth Fort Worth • San Antonio • Los Angeles 821 ᮤ Train Number ᮣ 822 21/421 ᮤ Train Number ᮣ 22/422 Daily ᮤ Days of Operation ᮣ Daily ᮤ ᮣ As indicated ᮤ ᮣ As indicated ® y On Board Service ® y in column Days of Operation in column ReadDown Mile ᮢ Symbol ᮡ Read Up ᮤ ᮣ ® s r On Board Service ® s r 8 25A 0 Dp Oklahoma City, OK (CT) 0h Ar 9 39P Read Down Mile ᮢ Symbol ᮡ Read Up b Tulsa, Kansas City—see back 0h 1 45P Daily 0 Dp Chicago, IL–Union (CT) 8s Ar 1 52P Daily 8 49A 20 Norman, OK 8 55P Hq 9 06A 35 Purcell, OK 0h 8 38P R 2 40P Daily 37 Joliet, IL 8H D12 56P Daily 9 31A 57 Pauls Valley, OK 0h 8 12P 3 27P Daily 92 Pontiac, IL 0H 11 39A Daily 10 23A 102 Ardmore, OK 0h 7 23P 4 04P Daily 124 Bloomington-Normal, IL 8s 11 08A Daily 11 05A 141 Gainesville, TX 0h 6 42P b Davenport, Hq 12 39P 206 Ar Fort Worth, TX (CT) 8hq Dp 5 25P Indianapolis—see back 4 37P Daily 156 Lincoln, IL 0H 10 25A Daily 5 14P Daily 185 Springfield, IL &¶8s 9 55A Daily Service on the Heartland Flyer® hq ® Coaches: Reservations required.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]